Titanomachina Damage Analysis

Something has been nagging at me, both as a designer and as a player, about the ratios of damage in Titanomachina. Quite early on, when Titanomachina was still an attempt at Adeptus Titanicus II, a friend had critiqued my plans, saying that it gave the defending player too many options and too much power, which would make any actions less impactful. And he was right about how players need to feel power in their actions, particularly in relation to the amount of effort that cost players, which is what guided me to remove dice and anything else that might interfere with the execution of a clever plan. Or that of a simple plan, such as a punch. 

Notably there is no 'punch' in Titanomachina. The attack is a combination move & attack action with an arm or big arm. Of course, combined with crew, or even on its own in the case of a big arm, this allows a variety of changes in range and relative orientation that sells the notion of a punch being a bodily thing lead by that arm system. I like this. Some people might think that the flavour would be then added via artwork and catchy card names, but I think the flavour is in how it plays, and then in relation to the artwork and catchy card names. Titans are big, massive machines with a lot of momentum. They act according to a programme, the order of cards in the Titan deck, and may gradually adapt to a situation as the player puts cards back on the bottom of the deck. This deck also defines a frequency and timing of damage. With 23 cards in a Titanomachina deck, and at least four rounds until any of those cards are back in-hand, you're looking to both concentrate damage in a round to minimise the likelihood that sub-destroyed damage will just be repaired, and gain a kind of momentum for either a knock-out or a ring-out. Specifically, I think, gaining a positive ratio of charge spent (or cards played face-down to activate other cards) to damage is how a knock-out can be achieved. But they are rare. I've played in only a few games where it ended in knock-out, which is where the player in the lead is 10pts ahead of their opponent(s) best score. 

Moreover, some weapons just feel weaker than others despite having better Effect scores, in part because I think they approach a 1:1 because of this number: 7, or the aggregate amount of damage the crew can repair in ~4 rounds of play. Well, 8 if the Titan is Gracious in personality. That's not including damage that was expended on shields. Notably various traits interact with Titans in different ways:

The high explosive trait causes extra damage to additional targets centered on the player's target on the Titan, and does so whether there are shields or not. The rocket pod thus does 3 damage while it remains Effect 1. A buzz saw can conceivably do 4 damage so long as the target and the additional target have at least one shield token so that the weapon's shield breaker trait can do something. The macro gun also does 4 damage thanks to the high explosive trait and hard rounds/push trait, if it can push the enemy into or through a building. All are Charge 1. The plasma howitzer is Charge 3. It also does 3 damage to a single target, and that concentration of damage is significant. While they aren't completely useless when suffering light and heavy damage, their charge makes the trade-off seem like you'd need a high-value, already-damage target to kill that turn. The macro laser does 3 damage, but from Effect 2 and the armour piercing trait, but loses damage if the Effect is used up on shields. The armour piercing trait also enables it to gib high-value targets, and makes blocking with extra armor considerably less safe. The laser blade does the same, and with shield breaker, meaning it can do 4 damage at most against a target with exactly 1 shield token. Three and zero shield tokens limits the weapon's unoperated potential to 3 damage. Being able to grapple stuff into buildings is something the claw can do too, pushing its damage up to 3 with a building adjacent to the target and attacker. 

The plasma shotgun has Charge 2 for Effect 2 and likewise compares unfavourably to the mega gun, gun battery, hand, and laser battery. The hand can grapple for damage 2, improved against shields to 3. The mega gun can improve that with two pushes from combined attacks, for damage 4, though more usually damage 2. The gun battery as no charge cost for 2 damage if you can bounce the target Titan into a building. That's a 1:2 ratio for Cost/Effect. Why? Because you still need to play the gun battery card, so 1 is the basic cost of any action. A Charge 2 shotgun costs 3, meaning that's a plasma howitzer you can't fire that turn if you fire the plasma shotgun. That could be 3x the number of single-card actions. Some other single-card actions would be personalities, Effect 1 move/repair/detect/scan/twist/raise shields, but also twist, raise shields, initiate crew, and gun batteries. 

Firing 3 gun batteries would have an unoperated ceiling of 6 damage, 3 from the effect of the gun batteries, and 3 crashing the target titan(s) into buildings. Interestingly causing only 1 point of damage can be negated by an opponent spending an initiate crew card to repair the damage at no additional cost, but that would also not be a +1 operate bonus to some action. It's not just how the damage is spread, as they could be between 1 and 6 targets damaged on the Titan, spreading the damage around the outer surface of the Titan, damage that might only remove shields rather than destroying two systems, let alone two precious, expensive systems. Destroying one system for such a cost might be justified. There's also the situation where 3 is the minimum amount of damage caused, but the target is pushed around rather than into a building or three. This puts a cost on the opponent to do something about being out of position. Likewise, so does the shock trait, requiring the target's player to discard a card out of hand. It may be a useless card, but it can't contribute to an additional action. Of course, losing a card is losing a card, while sometimes an opponent may inadvertently give you a free turn. The thing is that sure 1:1 cost/damage is greater than the plasma shotgun's 3:2 The plasma shotgun is below the curve, so to speak. Perhaps amusingly reducing the plasma shotgun's charge to 1 means it would have that 1:1 ratio of cost/damage plus the additional impact of the shock trait, which is only good if you have the cards to exploit an opponent who may suddenly be unable to react appropriately with a block by extra armour, or who is now losing that extra armour and another card, which throws off the ratio at which that opponent is earning damage by spending charge. 

Likewise the other impactful weapons have a cost of usually 2:3 for the macro gun, the rocket pod, the , the buzz saw, the claw, and the mega gun. These can go as high as 2:4. They're all Effect 2. The laser blade and macro laser are 3:3 thanks to the armour piercing added to Effect 2. The laser battery is likewise underwhelming, particularly against shields, because it maintains a 2:2 except in the case of shields. The upshot of an operated armour piercing attack into an unshielded target is pretty high though. Having it be underwhelming gives it a wider swing when it overwhelms. This makes up for lasers costing more charge. 

I'm tempted to address the plasma shotgun's issue by giving it the high explosive trait, mechanically levering it up to 3 damage any time and place, but flattening it. It also distinguishes it somewhat from the plasma howitzer. However, reducing the charge to 1 means that players would get to do more, which isn't always a bad thing, especially where they need the extra charge to capitalise on any tempo advantage that shock may confer as a result of the attack. Both are preferable to making the plasma shotgun Effect 3, rendering the plasma howitzer a problem to be solved. In fact, the plasma howitzer is something of a problem, but the combination of shock and hitting that damage 3 threshold in an unoperated attack on a single target can be pretty impactful. Not actually being efficient offsets its efficacy quite well. Flavour-wise the high explosive suits the name of 'shotgun' as spreading plasma like shot from a shotgun. Without that impact the shock isn't great. Maybe even high explosive (2) like a rocket pod? Because that tips it at 3:4, leaving the plasma howitzer at 4:3. 

It also gives the game another high explosive weapon to add to the rocket pod, the macro gun, and the buzz saw. It'll help whoever takes it clear buildings more quickly, as they don't tend to be piled in convenient single-owner buildings... Certainly I need to do some math.

Titanomachina on Tabletop Simulator: Refitting Styxx config. 4

This configuration of Styxx, configuration 5, isn't user-friendly and therefore not beginner-friendly. That's a problem where I host Titanomachina on Steam, as it's a problematic platform. The last thing I want is someone to hold their nose and go to the effort of giving it a try and having a bad experience because they're learning the game. 

Part of the problem may be that it has too many Charge 2 systems. This contributes to a problem with agility, making it easy to catch out of cover and with shields down. Once back-footed, this configuration is slow to recover despite the deflectors being Charge 0/1, because it needs the power for offense. 

There are a selection of solutions: (1) reduce all senior crew to Initiates, (2) swap out the capacitors for thrusters or a sponson or both, (3) swap out rear sensors for additional extra armour on the flanks. Maybe some combination. 

Initially I'm going with #2 because doing so meant not creating any new cards (Extra Armour 4 & 5), and adding mobility and agility (Jump & Twist action, and the combination, means more interesting things for learners to explore. 

Of course Styxx already has that unique Turret system for 360 fire, but it's one system that needs to go off with at least two other actions (operate or attack, maybe full power) requiring between 3 and 6 cards. Adding a sponson means that Styxx can twist twice in a cycle of the Titan deck through four rounds. Throw in Thrusters and there's not just the opportunity to thrash around and break buildings as you re-position, but to jump sideways or even backwards. With Adherent Crew operating Thrusters you could jump 4 squares/tiles backwards, or anywhere really. Start in the middle of the board and reposition if you win the initiative draw. You know the first thing a learner is going to do is jump behind their enemy, right? Or at least give them the opportunity to do so. I mean, I have favourites in the Styxx configurations, namely #2 and #5. Why not emphasize the mobility rather than the surge that full power gives?

Titanomachina Development: How to lose the Deadline Marker

Quite early on in the development of Titanomachina I realized that the game needs to have an end-point, something to give players both a sense of urgency, and to keep the game closer to an hour to play rather than some greater amount of time. So, cribbing from Blood Bowl, I implemented an arbitrary time limit based on the dimensions of the game (18 rounds), implemented a game track to record-keeping purposes and a deadline marker to move along it and it's worked out ever since. However, there was the issue of then needing to include a deadline marker, and putting the track on the board (preventing the board from being expanded with additional Titanomachina sets). The board art required the track, which was a hassle, and the punchboard needed the deadline marker art, and so on. Additionally, as I proceeded with the development of Titanomachina I found trimming parts was my best way forward rather than adding stuff. 

Lately I've been exploring ways to lose the board, and that was not hamstrung by my need to figure out how to implement the game track and initiative track without a board, because I had already experimented with boards not featuring explicit game and initiative tracks. Initiative was determined by stacking some spare building blocks, with the order going from top to bottom. The deadline marker moved around the edge of the board, with the board itself conveniently (and not coincidentally) being 9x9 squares so that a game was complete once the deadline marker had moved along two sides of the board. Combining the two so that the initiative stack (that third dimension is great, by the way) also tracks as the deadline marker is logical, in that it uses existing game elements to express the same logic of priority and time. Altering the rules to cope with the change from a board with defined tracks to a more abstract, structural representation would require new diagrams and nomenclature rather than any structural change, which is good. 

Practically-speaking, this enables me to fit Titanomachina into a smaller, more space-efficient box. If I include 100 building blocks in the box, then each player has 24 to play on the board, plus 1 more for tracking initiative and the deadline. I would need to double the number of tiles though, as I would need 48 Road/Roundabout tiles, 16 T-junction/L-bend tiles, and 32 Foundation tiles, or tiles that would replace the board in the empty squares where roads cannot be placed. 

Below is something of a mock-up using an old biscuit tin, an earlier prototype of the building blocks (wooden cubes with stickers in the appropriate colours, which is good enough for me, but not colour-blind people), all the cards (including 16 Dashboard cards), 48 Road/Roundabout tiles, a deadline marker/cube (for 101 blocks), a baggy of colour-coded shield tokens (translucent plastic bingo chips), a single dry-erase marker, and four 3D printed Titans with twelve weapons on not-strictly-necessary hexagonal bases. The deadline marker would be another component lost to free up space for more tiles, and maybe stuff like the utility buildings or whatnot. As you can see, 8"x8"x3" can fit quite a lot. 

Titanomachina Development: How to Lose the Board

Of the many, many things in this project that have vexed me, the boards perhaps have vexed me the most. It's difficult to get things projected at the right sizing for the intended printing, although I think what vexes me the most about it is that I have had successes, followed by what I might call 'failures.' 

The first board I ordered worked perfectly, possibly because I hadn't attempted to mangle the artwork and the artist I had commissioned had quite proficiently made it usable 'as is.' The second, 6x6 board, worked out fine but it was just a cropping of the original art. A further printing where I had attempted to alter the artwork proved un-usable as I hadn't sized the art properly and so the printers faithfully printed it to the altered size. So in order to pursue this option I need to either hire a graphic designer, which isn't in the budget, or learn to prepare images properly myself, which still has a cost to me in personal time. How much, I couldn't tell you, and that's a concern at the outset.

Trying a different tack, I commissioned some new art, and eventually had it produced. The problem, such as it was, was that the manufacturer had actually gone up and above the requirements, making me some PVC matt boards that could be combined to make a bigger board. That the squares were slightly larger to the grid extended out to the edge of 18" was not a problem. It was actually a mild benefit given that the cards were 50mm, and the extra fraction of 1m looked alright. The second set I ordered, hoping they would turn out the same without describing the additional requirement, were not made to tesselate. They were, however, perfectly on spec, which is both again on me and another cost in both time and money to fix.  

However, I have had some lucky with the road tiles that I originally commissioned. These printed out nicely, and being double-sided a Roundabout and a Road gave players access to all the road tiles they would need for all but the bleakest boards in a set of 48. Some issues with the graphic design I had commissioned meant that I learned to make sufficient artwork for my purposes, adding two new road tile sides, for T-junction and L-bend. Now, limiting the relative quantities of these tiles would affect the game out of the board, but I'm reasonably confident that players don't need more than 48 road tiles in the basic game. 

Of course, this line of thought brought me to wonder why not to include more than the 48 sweet spot for manufacturing an optimal number of tiles. What if, for example, players wanted to cover the board in roads? They would need 81 for that, since the board is a 9x9 grid, a 1-18 track, and if I could make the artwork play nicely, a 1-6 track. But playing on the PVC matt boards made me improvise ways of tracking the game rounds and initiative, which don't strictly need tracks. The game rounds, for instance, can be tracked around two edges of the board, in a hilariously Monopoly-style journey. The initiative tokens can be set up in a row with player assent as to its clarity. It has me thinking about ways to combine the initiative and the game arounds, and getting rid of the deadline marker would be one less un-necessary component. 

But being able to cover the board means covering the board, and if you've covered the board, then in a vague sense you don't really need the board, just the cover. I've also been somewhat inspired by both Carcassonne and Keys to the Castle. So where would those other, at minimum 33, tiles come from? Why not tiles for placing buildings on top of them? Roads can't have buildings, and that means buildings are kind of sunk into the board relative to the Titans standing on roads. Plus, and this is something I rather want to emphasize, this makes craters out of the negative space where a tile is not placed (or is removed). 

It's not like making a board out of tiles is a particularly new idea, but it is a good idea if you can take the tiles to behave, which means they need to tesselate. Plus there's the requirement that the roads themselves need to connect properly, with other roads or the edge, and that's easily enough extended to cover these 'foundation' tiles. 

It also enables implementation of an idea that I had previously abandoned because things needed to be fast and simple for a mass audience, rather than intuitive and interesting for the mass audience, wherein players could start anywhere on an empty board, but discovered buildings and roads as they walked over and around them (and used their sensors, with the building number being a cap on building scoring). 

So what I'm going to do is order some more tiles, adjust the mix to be 48 Road/Roudabout tiles, 16 T-junction/L-bend tiles, and 32 building tiles. 

In the meantime I think I want to consider how to drop the deadline marker...